So the USA told Assad a few months ago that they would attack him if he used chemical weapons. Since then he's been winning the war against the rebels quite handily and it seemed like he would hold on to power. Suddenly he decides to use chemical weapons. Right. Makes perfect sense.
There's clearly no need (or time) to figure out where the chemicals actually came from. John Kerry already knows. Never mind that the Saudis, Israel and the USA have been funding and arming the rebels and desperately want Syria to fall so that Iran will be weakened.
As we learned from Iraq truth doesn't really matter. Decide what you want to do and create the conditions to do it. Syria was going to fall one way or another. Then Iran.

Since then he's been winning the war against the rebels quite handily and it seemed like he would hold on to power.

Methinks that's the really disturbing thing about this ongoing regime change policy. The combined military/intelligence/taxpayer might of the richest nations on earth gets dropped on these crappy little regimes... and they still manage to hold their own against it. Just imagine if China or Russia or some other notable power was really pushing hard in the other direction.

Also, the potential for US/European/Russian/Chinese/Israeli/Etc. intelligence (or some combination thereof) to exploit the situation by introducing a surprise into the mix is just huge. The various players sure must have a lot of faith in whatever behind-the-scenes assurances that they're getting.

Methinks that's the really disturbing thing about this ongoing regime change policy. The combined military/intelligence/taxpayer might of the richest nations on earth gets dropped on these crappy little regimes... and they still manage to hold their own against it. Just imagine if China or Russia or some other notable power was really pushing hard in the other direction.

Also, the potential for US/European/Russian/Chinese/Israeli/Etc. intelligence (or some combination thereof) to exploit the situation by introducing a surprise into the mix is just huge. The various players sure must have a lot of faith in whatever behind-the-scenes assurances that they're getting.

Don't forget however against these "crappy little regimes" considering the delicate nature of inter and intra-state alliances, both formal and informal, backroom international politicking and deal-making, the US rarely if ever goes full bore - in Iraq, Afghanistan and potentially Syria for very obvious reasons they utilized but a fraction of their potential, i.e. strategic and tactical nuclear, chemical and certain stealth weaponry were never an option and therefore not brought to bear. In a real one on one confrontation with China and Russia - in the event the balloon really went up - that would likely not be the case, unfortunately for the rest of us. Militarily the US still stands head and shoulders above either of the other two - essentially there is US and then there is everyone else in terms of military capability and spending. Although China is certainly making serious inroads with recent developments in their navy especially, their air force is no match for the USAF. As for Russia, most of their navy including dozens of nuclear submarines, sit rusting to pieces near the Kola Peninsula or on the bottom of the Barents Sea.

From an intelligence standpoint I doubt there will be too many 'surprises': this situation is right on Israel's doorstep - you think the Mossad or Shin Bet aren't all over it? The NSA? And depending how seriously the US-UK view the situation, much like Iraq 1, on the ground units like the SAS may have been inserted into the region weeks or even months ago. There is no way of knowing of course.

The US will continue airstrikes hopefully and wipe these idiots out, they are probably the greatest threat to the rest of the eastern world.

I don't notice these brave ISIS fighters going anywhere near Iran. They know they would get wiped out.

That's exactly right. (Relatively) stable places like Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and even Egypt are watching this in horror. And with all the stuff going on in Libya, Syria and Iraq, nobody in the Arab world is much complaining about the Palestinian situation, as they don't want Hamas to become the next ISIS. Hamas is already too connected to the Brotherhood for the liking of Jordan, Egypt and the Gulf states.

So I'm a bit unclear where ISIS is going to get continued funding, when they start running out of spare parts and fuel for their vehicles etc. Are they actually competent at keeping and running infrastructure? I know they are just robbing everyone before they kill them, but can they sustain that? With 5,000 US workers at the embassy in Baghdad (it opened with 16,000 workers in 2009), there must be lots of oil money still coming in, but that's likely still coming into parts of the country not held by ISIS. Hamas gets oodles of money from other Arab states, but I can't see any outside government wishing to fund ISIS.

As Mark Steyn says, "ISIS are fast-track Nazis. No messing about with a few property restrictions and intermarriage laws as a little light warm-up: They're only in the business of "final solutions", and they start on Day One and don't quit until the last Christian and Yazidi is dead or fled..."